Stamps4Life, My apologies in advance if this comes across as strong, but it is time to have full disclosure to us of ALL the facts you know about this item, rather than dribbling them out a bit at a time. Specifically: 1. What auction house, sale number/date, and lot number - so we can all see exactly how the lot was described. 2. A scan of the certificate. 3. What else do you know? There is clearly something wrong with the data so far presented.
Don, May I recommend that perforation comparisons be made side against side and top against bottom. Since we know about paper shrinkage versus grain direction as moisture content changes ... we do not have any knowledge of the exact moisture content at the time of perforating and the time of scanning ... thus some expansion or contraction could occur with moisture content changes. To eliminate the variable, perforation comparisons should be made side against side and top against bottom. Side against top introduces another variable. Make sense?
Hi John - no, not strong. I didn't mean to dribble out the info., but I did not know about the perf until don mentioned it. I previously was just concerned about the listing as a 8 cent var when it's not. Then the hinge remnant stuff. I'll get the stuff together and throw it up and wait for the opinions. Seems weird to me. I've stated exactly what's been given to me from the catalog and cert. Wm. Tks.
I would be concerned about what is going on with the upper right corner. It looks like the top 3 perfs on the right side are gum-soaked or discolored. They don't appear to be there in the cert photo, and I don't see anything mentioned in the catalog description. A lot can happen to a stamp in 9 years. Basing an auction lot description on a 9 year old cert is, simply, lazy.
ok, there are 2 different stamps here... The 1st is a PR40 which all the info is here. From the same auction. My beef is that the hinge remnant was not mentioned anywhere. The other is the 9¢ described as an 8$ variant with possible mismatched perfs???
Hi John, I offered no opinion because I am just a hobbyist and my opinion is not really important. My intent was to call attention to the top perfs because it looks suspect to me and if I owned the stamp I would be looking closer at them. For example, after straightening his original image*, look closer at the way the top perfs seem to wander (compared to the design).
The original image is skewed, potentially adding another variable to for consideration. Given that we rarely know much about how posted images are generated, I again am only suggesting a closer look with stamp in hand. Can you see pressure ridges? How clean are the perfs cut? Are the perf tear outs all the same? Etc. Don
Stamps4Life, re: "wrong" Your comment was clearly directed at me. Now that you have posted more information and I have a catalog in front of me, I will say that to call it a variety of PR61 and bringing in the 8 cent value into the auction description muddied the waters. They should have said that based on the certificate is deserves to be inserted as a full catalog number PR61A, which would imply it is on soft porous paper, etc. If it were mine, I would be sending it to the Foundation for a second opinion.
Sorry, my bad. I meant John.... Apologies, I'm looking at a 2019 Scott catalog and they don't list a PR61a. All I have listed in my catalog is PR61..... To be clear - all the data I presented was from the auction house and not my opinion. I don't want anyone thinking I was making stuff up. Tks Wm.
According to the Luff book, a 9 cent stamp was printed. The paper for all the special printings was "very white, fine, close, without sign of weave or grain. The perforation gauges 12 and is very clear cut. It was apparently made by a guillotine machine, one row at a time. Evidence of this is found in the fact that the rows of perforations are not always parallel nor the holes in line on opposite sides of the stamp." There is more regarding the inks and various colors of the different values.